Is Berkeley Worth Sticker?

So I visited during ASW this past weekend and loved it, but the sticker price at Berkeley is just a bit scary. I have about $100,000 tucked away that I can use, and I was considering selling my car on top of that since I talked to some students who told me one wasn't really necessary. I'll also have some financial support from parents every year to the tune of $10-15k.

Nevertheless, the thought of such an expensive education is frightening. My other options are Michigan with $30,000; Cornell with $45,000; and UCLA with $75,000.

I also was recently awarded the non-resident tuition exemption at Texas plus $7,000 per year.

Speaking generally, all you are really asking is "Is a T10 worth sticker?" I say that because, for all the flack, Berkeley really doesn't cost much more than other T10's.

Speaking more specifically to your situation, that depends entirely on what you want to do. Do you want to work in BigLaw? If so, where? And do you have any sense for the practice area you might like to focus on?

But really, you are in a very fortunate position. Between your savings and your parents' support, you have nearly $145K to work with. You are not going to have much debt upon graduation no matter where you go.

I say all of these things as someone who happily signed up to pay sticker at Boalt (though they later gave me in-state plus an additional ~$20K per year in financial aid), and is now headed to a V5. Do I like the debt? No. Am I glad I went to Berkeley? Every day, my friend...

The real question is- is it worth taking money at another school or going to Boalt at sticker.

Boalt will give you more options than UCLA, especially nationally. It will give you more options than Texas or Cornell nationally. The real question is - is $30,000 worth living in Ann Arbor? If you can answer that question with a "yes," then I'd go to Michigan.

Doorkeeper wrote:What do you want to do after graduation and where do you want to do it?

If you want NYC biglaw, go to Cornell.If you want Chicago biglaw, go to Michigan.If you want Texas biglaw, go to Texas.

The real question then is, if you want California, and if so do you think Berkeley is worth $75k more than UCLA? For that, I'm not sure.

Lolno

You would choose one of the other options for Chicago? OP didn't mention any other schools, so, based on their options, Michigan is the best choice if Chicago is the desired market.

Or there's if you want Chicago don't go to these schools.

That's asinine. If you go to Michigan, you can get a job in Chicago. If you got into Michigan, Berkeley, Cornell, and UCLA, and you wanted Chicago, Michigan is TCR. Not attending law school, simply based on a want for the Chicago market, is not TCR.

TemporarySaint wrote:The only people dumb enough to think that Chicago is a target market for Michigan are UMich's OCS.

Also, I doubt there's any real edge in NYC placement between Cornell and Michigan. If anything, I'd bet chances from Michigan are better.

I'm not so sure about Michigan being better than Cornell for NYC, but Michigan is certainly not a go-to school for Chicago.

My guess is most likely possibility there's no difference. There's a chance of a Michigan boost as I'm guessing that the majority of the the Cornell class is targeting NYC whereas Mich is probably a lot more diverse in who bids, so maybe a better chance.

ScrabbleChamp wrote:That's asinine. If you go to Michigan, you can get a job in Chicago. If you got into Michigan, Berkeley, Cornell, and UCLA, and you wanted Chicago, Michigan is TCR. Not attending law school, simply based on a want for the Chicago market, is not TCR.

You're aware Michigan's current shitty employment data is at least partially due to their career services office telling kids to bid Chicago, where they promptly got owned by UChi and NU kids, right?

Can it get you to Chicago? Yeah. Is it a feeder school for Chicago? No.

I was going to attend berkeley at sticker, but given some ties to NY (I also have family in California though) and recent acceptance to Columbia, I'm going to NY for a change of pace. If berkeley got back to me with any kind of real money I would have probably went there.

TemporarySaint wrote:The only people dumb enough to think that Chicago is a target market for Michigan are UMich's OCS.

Also, I doubt there's any real edge in NYC placement between Cornell and Michigan. If anything, I'd bet chances from Michigan are better.

I thought you were a decent poster, but you're quickly losing credibility. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this lapse in judgment, but the above is not right. Michigan and Cornell are certainly peers in the aggregate, but if you're focusing solely on NYC placement, no way Michigan is better. Taking Michigan could make sense based on personal preference or additional scholarship money, but head-to-head, Cornell wins.

Also, Michigan for Chicago was historically a good bet. Not so much anymore.

Last edited by woeisme on Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

I guess you and I define OP's question differently. I guess Berkeley is worth sticker in the sense that it's a justifiable investment. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a non-marginal amount of students who end up undermployed and fucked with lots of debt. Should someone go to Berkeley at sticker if that's their only law school option? The answer to that is hardly "of course."

I guess you and I define OP's question differently. I guess Berkeley is worth sticker in the sense that it's a justifiable investment. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a non-marginal amount of students who end up undermployed and fucked with lots of debt. Should someone go to Berkeley at sticker if that's their only law school option? The answer to that is hardly "of course."

TemporarySaint wrote:The only people dumb enough to think that Chicago is a target market for Michigan are UMich's OCS.

Also, I doubt there's any real edge in NYC placement between Cornell and Michigan. If anything, I'd bet chances from Michigan are better.

I thought you were a decent poster, but you're quickly losing credibility. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this lapse in judgment, but the above is not right. Michigan and Cornell are certainly peers in the aggregate, but if you're focusing solely on NYC placement, no way Michigan is better. Taking Michigan could make sense based on personal preference or additional scholarship money, but head-to-head, Cornell wins.

Also, Michigan for Chicago was historically a good bet. Not so much anymore.

I assume you've been through OCI, so probably have a better grasp on things than I do. I think I clarified in my next post that I'd assume the vast majority of people at Cornell bit heavy/exclusively NYC. I don't base this on the the MVP bit. At Michigan you have more diverse bidding with more people targeting West Coast and Midwest. We saw something similar to this with NW students' ability to nab Weil interviews for instance on much lower bids than Cornell kids. Someone might have a better chance through decreased competition. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

OP. I'd take Michigan or Cornell. Bay Area is killer, but Berk is also really fucking expensive. With your savings, parental help, and scholarship $$ you'll be graduating close to debt free. Good position to be in. If you decide you're CA or bust, take Berk.